Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker Builds and Strats Thread

[aweigh]

thanks in advance. i'm planning on restarting once big patch/next hotfix drops and I want to eLARP something as close to a Kensai/"samurai" as possible, but i'm having trouble deciding on whether I should mix monk with fighter and/or rogue.

what's a good makeshift "samurai" build using pathfinder rules? elven rogue/fighter using curved blade? or is monk better for a makeshift "samurai"? Is there any way to make GOOD use of monk dipping in combination with a sword?

The way I see "samurai" archetype is a martial unit that can deal good damage via their sword weapon, preferably a TWO handed blade as katanas are 2-handed, and they utilize close-combat techniques (like grappling and jiujitsu) to deflect incoming attacks and then counter-attack.

what classes/feats would best help accomplish this goal? I noticed there are some feats that complement Defensive Fighting and this can be a good representation of the samurai drawing the enemy in and then counter-attacking, and there are also some rogue feats that make sneak attack debuff the enemy.

EDIT: additionally is there really any reason at all NOT to go aasimar? they seem extremely good and I can't see any downside.

EDIT 2x: STOP LAUGHING AT ME FOR WANTING TO PLAY AS A SAMURAI

 

[Yosharian]

thanks in advance. i'm planning on restarting once big patch/next hotfix drops and I want to eLARP something as close to a Kensai/"samurai" as possible, but i'm having trouble deciding on whether I should mix monk with fighter and/or rogue.

what's a good makeshift "samurai" build using pathfinder rules? elven rogue/fighter using curved blade? or is monk better for a makeshift "samurai"? Is there any way to make GOOD use of monk dipping in combination with a sword?

The way I see "samurai" archetype is a martial unit that can deal good damage via their sword weapon, preferably a TWO handed blade as katanas are 2-handed, and they utilize close-combat techniques (like grappling and jiujitsu) to deflect incoming attacks and then counter-attack.

what classes/feats would best help accomplish this goal? I noticed there are some feats that complement Defensive Fighting and this can be a good representation of the samurai drawing the enemy in and then counter-attacking, and there are also some rogue feats that make sneak attack debuff the enemy.

EDIT: additionally is there really any reason at all NOT to go aasimar? they seem extremely good and I can't see any downside.

EDIT 2x: STOP LAUGHING AT ME FOR WANTING TO PLAY AS A SAMURAI

You wanna wear robes only? Or light armor? Spellcasting?

 

[Background Character]

The class that is more like a samurai in Pathfinder is the Samurai class

But is not in the game

Cross your little fingers and maybe they'll add it in the near far far future, I'm crossing my fingers for the Oracle or the Witch

 

[Cael]

If they really want the spell but can't make a faithful implementation they should just set it to 1 round of stun/Fort. neg. and forget about deafness.

So, completely fucking useless since you cannot in any way depend on it to do anything, and even if it would, it'd just be a single round of Stunned? Also, "faithful implementation" is completely meaningless. Docusing on mirroring the PnP on principle is retarded.

Problem is, dude, it was marketed as a faithful adaption of the PnP modules to a computer game. That makes the criticism valid. Not that there is all that much that is faithful. The lazy stat bloat on mobs is a prime example.

The stat bloat is dependent on your difficulty settings, though. Lower-difficulty enemies are a more faithful PnP interpretation.

They replaced a CR3 bear with a treant bear. I am not sure if lowering the difficulty will bring back the CR 3 bear... There has been too many examples of crazy numbers to believe that the mobs are as intended by the PnP module. Setting a level 4 party against something with an AC of 41, for example. That is pretty off the wall.

Forget about the moaning about how hard the game is. That is merely the symptom of the problem. The problem is that the default setting shouldn't be where it is because the ruleset that the game is based on isn't like that at all. Paizo is a fucktard for allowing it to happen, but I have come to expect little but incompetence and stupidity from Paizo, so no need to comment further there. If Codexians want a bigger challenge, they are free to turn the difficulty up to non-Pathfinder levels. It shouldn't be that the difficulty needs to be turned down to get to the original difficulty levels. This is a user-friendliness and marketing problem. It is aimed at Paizotards, but the difficuty is not at Paizotard level. The Steam reviews are proof of this. While Codexians love to sneer at others, this time, the others do have a point. A point that, sadly, Codexians are unable to grasp because of the hat sitting on their nose.

 

[aweigh]

medium armor for sure.

spell-wise I noticed the Ki abilities from monk and that's what initially drew my eye, and also why i ask if there's any kind of monk-with-a-sword build that's viable and not just horribly gimped.

as for straight out spell casting that would make the character much more of a Wizardry-style samurai, i.e. fighter with arcane spell-casting, and that would be more of a Fighter/Arcane Trickster combo and that doesn't really interest me.

mechanics wise seems like elven curved blade is the closest thing in-game currently to a mighty nippon katana which almost makes elven race a necessity for this kind of LARP-build.

 

[Yosharian]

medium armor for sure.

spell-wise I noticed the Ki abilities from monk and that's what initially drew my eye, and also why i ask if there's any kind of monk-with-a-sword build that's viable and not just horribly gimped.

as for straight out spell casting that would make the character much more of a Wizardry-style samurai, i.e. fighter with arcane spell-casting, and that would be more of a Fighter/Arcane Trickster combo and that doesn't really interest me.

mechanics wise seems like elven curved blade is the closest thing in-game currently to a mighty nippon katana which almost makes elven race a necessity for this kind of LARP-build.

You want to use medium armor? Monk is... not suitable.

I realise you may not be interested in spellcasting but the Magus archetype 'sword saint' (Kensai in PnP) is pretty much what you're describing... it doesn't use armor though.

Otherwise, I could look at a fighter build that could fit what you're asking for I guess

 

[aweigh]

hmm, am looking at this sword saint and it looks interesting. might go with this. (probably will).

aside from the sword saint, do feel free to post some spicy fighter builds for sure. fighter is my favorite character.

i was thinking that a 2-handed Fighter using elven blade mixed with monk and light-armor would be good?

 

[Luckmann]

If they really want the spell but can't make a faithful implementation they should just set it to 1 round of stun/Fort. neg. and forget about deafness.

So, completely fucking useless since you cannot in any way depend on it to do anything, and even if it would, it'd just be a single round of Stunned? Also, "faithful implementation" is completely meaningless. Docusing on mirroring the PnP on principle is retarded.

Problem is, dude, it was marketed as a faithful adaption of the PnP modules to a computer game. That makes the criticism valid. Not that there is all that much that is faithful. The lazy stat bloat on mobs is a prime example.

The stat bloat is dependent on your difficulty settings, though. Lower-difficulty enemies are a more faithful PnP interpretation.

They replaced a CR3 bear with a treant bear. I am not sure if lowering the difficulty will bring back the CR 3 bear... There has been too many examples of crazy numbers to believe that the mobs are as intended by the PnP module. Setting a level 4 party against something with an AC of 41, for example. That is pretty off the wall.

Forget about the moaning about how hard the game is. That is merely the symptom of the problem. The problem is that the default setting shouldn't be where it is because the ruleset that the game is based on isn't like that at all. Paizo is a fucktard for allowing it to happen, but I have come to expect little but incompetence and stupidity from Paizo, so no need to comment further there. If Codexians want a bigger challenge, they are free to turn the difficulty up to non-Pathfinder levels. It shouldn't be that the difficulty needs to be turned down to get to the original difficulty levels. This is a user-friendliness and marketing problem. It is aimed at Paizotards, but the difficuty is not at Paizotard level. The Steam reviews are proof of this. While Codexians love to sneer at others, this time, the others do have a point. A point that, sadly, Codexians are unable to grasp because of the hat sitting on their nose.

Or, or we just don't give a shit whether this meets some meritless standard of 1:1 emulation of the tabletop stats due to some misguided principle, and care even less about who you think this was marketed towards. Maybe we just wanted a genuinely good game that is appropriately challenging, no matter how much the idiots on steam or the paizotards bitch about it because they can't figure out that they need to memorize spells.

 

[Yosharian]

hmm, am looking at this sword saint and it looks interesting. might go with this. (probably will).

aside from the sword saint, do feel free to post some spicy fighter builds for sure. fighter is my favorite character.

i was thinking that a 2-handed Fighter using elven blade mixed with monk and light-armor would be good?

Not really. The problem with marrying yourself to one weapon, is you find a great weapon but it's not the correct type. And then you find 200 more great weapons, but none of them are the right type. And you get halfway through the game, still using the +1 weapon you found in the first ten minutes, all because you married your character to one specific weapon type.

You can play a character focused on a specific weapon type easily once you know what weapons are in the game... before? It's pointless.

 

[Cael]

Or, or we just don't give a shit whether this meets some standard of 1:1 emulation of the tabletop stats due to some principle, and care even less about who you think this was marketed towards. Maybe we just wanted a genuinely good game that is appropriately challenging.

No one is saying you can't have a challenge. As I said, turn the difficulty up. You can still have the same challenge you have now.

The problem is basically one group saying, "I want the default here!" and the other saying, "No! Here is better!"

Yet, when marketing to a target group, they should take priority, not others, no matter how monocled they believe themselves to be. And let's face it, Pathfinder is aimed at Paizotards, not Codexians.

 

[Haplo]

hmm, am looking at this sword saint and it looks interesting. might go with this. (probably will).

aside from the sword saint, do feel free to post some spicy fighter builds for sure. fighter is my favorite character.

i was thinking that a 2-handed Fighter using elven blade mixed with monk and light-armor would be good?

Aweigh,
If you are interested in the Sword Saint + far east mysticism, but don't care much about spellcasting, then the multiclass: Monk 2 / Sword Saint 9 / Duelist 9 should fit like a glove.
It's one of the tankiest builds out there, unhittable for most enemies. At least as long as Canny Defense works like it does (Int AC bonuses from Sword Saint and Duelist stack).
You get AC from Intelligence (x2, up to Sword Saint/Duelist levels respectively), Dexterity and Wisdom (or Charisma, which could open other feats and help Persuasion... but Will save will be much better with Wisdom and Traditional Monk). Try to get a +9 Int modifier (+6 Int from items). Rest of the bonuses into Dex.
A rapier would be a good weapon choice, as there are many Agile versions (which add Dex to damage), including ones available early. It has a wide critical threat range (SS can crit with spells using weapon crits and can increase the crit multiplier).
Damage isn't particularly high (lower then Strenght builds or sneak builds), but not that bad and you get a lot of attacks of opportunity with Crane Style Riposte and the critical feats (particularly if you tailor your party to use wide critical threat weapons and Seize the Moment teamwork feat).

It's probably pretty tough early on to get going, though.

 

[Haplo]

Well, Aldori Defender class would fit even better, I guess. Duelling Swords resemble katanas (although are one-handed). Apparently there are many good Dueling Swords in this game. And it's a Fighter archetype, specializing in defense and disarming of its enemies. Non-monk humanoids are apparently affected quite a bit by that - as they try to make unarmed attacks, you get Attacks of Opportunity.

 

[Yosharian]

Cheesy as fuck stacking those two, but it's a cool character any way

 

[ArchAngel]

If they really want the spell but can't make a faithful implementation they should just set it to 1 round of stun/Fort. neg. and forget about deafness.

So, completely fucking useless since you cannot in any way depend on it to do anything, and even if it would, it'd just be a single round of Stunned? Also, "faithful implementation" is completely meaningless. Docusing on mirroring the PnP on principle is retarded.

Problem is, dude, it was marketed as a faithful adaption of the PnP modules to a computer game. That makes the criticism valid. Not that there is all that much that is faithful. The lazy stat bloat on mobs is a prime example.

The stat bloat is dependent on your difficulty settings, though. Lower-difficulty enemies are a more faithful PnP interpretation.

They replaced a CR3 bear with a treant bear. I am not sure if lowering the difficulty will bring back the CR 3 bear... There has been too many examples of crazy numbers to believe that the mobs are as intended by the PnP module. Setting a level 4 party against something with an AC of 41, for example. That is pretty off the wall.

Forget about the moaning about how hard the game is. That is merely the symptom of the problem. The problem is that the default setting shouldn't be where it is because the ruleset that the game is based on isn't like that at all. Paizo is a fucktard for allowing it to happen, but I have come to expect little but incompetence and stupidity from Paizo, so no need to comment further there. If Codexians want a bigger challenge, they are free to turn the difficulty up to non-Pathfinder levels. It shouldn't be that the difficulty needs to be turned down to get to the original difficulty levels. This is a user-friendliness and marketing problem. It is aimed at Paizotards, but the difficuty is not at Paizotard level. The Steam reviews are proof of this. While Codexians love to sneer at others, this time, the others do have a point. A point that, sadly, Codexians are unable to grasp because of the hat sitting on their nose.

You chose the worst fucking example, but since you are not playing this game but only shitposting here I can understand.
That bear was changed for story reasons, not because of some more challenging design goal.

Spoiler

That is a fey version of a normal bear, it is supposed to show players early what kind of shit is awaiting them later. PnP campaign (I was told) has Fey shit suddenly come out of nowhere,

so Owlcat (possibly with advice of MCA) decided to introduce some of the elements earlier so it fits better in a computer version.

EDIT: But since the autist called Cael has me on ignore he will not learn this and just continue spouting his garbage on this page while pretending he knows what he is talking about while not actually playing the game (I don't think he even played Pathfinder on tabletop).

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

If they really want the spell but can't make a faithful implementation they should just set it to 1 round of stun/Fort. neg. and forget about deafness.

So, completely fucking useless since you cannot in any way depend on it to do anything, and even if it would, it'd just be a single round of Stunned? Also, "faithful implementation" is completely meaningless. Docusing on mirroring the PnP on principle is retarded.

Problem is, dude, it was marketed as a faithful adaption of the PnP modules to a computer game. That makes the criticism valid. Not that there is all that much that is faithful. The lazy stat bloat on mobs is a prime example.

The stat bloat is dependent on your difficulty settings, though. Lower-difficulty enemies are a more faithful PnP interpretation.

They replaced a CR3 bear with a treant bear. I am not sure if lowering the difficulty will bring back the CR 3 bear... There has been too many examples of crazy numbers to believe that the mobs are as intended by the PnP module. Setting a level 4 party against something with an AC of 41, for example. That is pretty off the wall.

Forget about the moaning about how hard the game is. That is merely the symptom of the problem. The problem is that the default setting shouldn't be where it is because the ruleset that the game is based on isn't like that at all. Paizo is a fucktard for allowing it to happen, but I have come to expect little but incompetence and stupidity from Paizo, so no need to comment further there. If Codexians want a bigger challenge, they are free to turn the difficulty up to non-Pathfinder levels. It shouldn't be that the difficulty needs to be turned down to get to the original difficulty levels. This is a user-friendliness and marketing problem. It is aimed at Paizotards, but the difficuty is not at Paizotard level. The Steam reviews are proof of this. While Codexians love to sneer at others, this time, the others do have a point. A point that, sadly, Codexians are unable to grasp because of the hat sitting on their nose.

You chose the worst fucking example, but since you are not playing this game but only shitposting here I can understand.
That bear was changed for story reasons, not because of some more challenging design goal. That is a fey version of a normal bear, it is supposed to show players early what kind of shit is awaiting them later. PnP campaign (I was told) has Fey shit suddenly come out of nowhere, so Owlcat (possibly with advice of MCA) decided to introduce some of the elements earlier so it fits better in a computer version.

EDIT: But since the autist called Cael has me on ignore he will not learn this and just continue spouting his garbage on this page while pretending he knows what he is talking about while not actually playing the game (I don't think he even played Pathfinder on tabletop).

Quoting this for no particular reason.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Wait, he still did not play the game?

 

[Shadenuat]

I actually tested and compared some enemies to Pathfinder, mainly I was interested in Wild Hunt, and using Bestiary 6 found out that endgame enemies are almost entirely accurate to the book up to saving throws, DC on their abilities, resists and immunities - on Normal.

 

[Cael]

Wait, he still did not play the game?

So, they claim. The Codex is full of people who think they know everything about someone they have never met on the Internet. Why should these fellows be any different? Well, other than because they are butthurt about me not agreeing to worship what they worship and give thanks to the devs they give thanks to.

 

[Luckmann]

No one is saying you can't have a challenge. As I said, turn the difficulty up. You can still have the same challenge you have now.

The problem is basically one group saying, "I want the default here!" and the other saying, "No! Here is better!"

Yet, when marketing to a target group, they should take priority, not others, no matter how monocled they believe themselves to be. And let's face it, Pathfinder is aimed at Paizotards, not Codexians.

Given how the game actually is, there seems to be no truth to this statement.

Also, it absolutely matters how a game is tuned at the default level. All other assumptions in the game revolves around that, includijg relative difficulties, which in this case are not tuned at all, but works as blanket bonuses or penalties. This game would never have worked the same way if it was tuned for you and yours, and it would've been worse off because of it, in nearly every single way.

Also, your criticism framed in terms of 'it should follow the PF tabletop because it should' rings extremely hollow considering that you seem to have no appreciation for PF or Paizo anyway, nor seem to have actually played PF:K.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Lets take a look at a cr3 bear.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/bear/black-bear/

AC 17. What exactly is this bear gonna do against a party of 6 except dieing in the first combat round without having caused as much as a single point of damage?

 

[aweigh]

how is the challenge rating judged in pathfinder? cr3 is what, versus 1 PC of 3rd char level? versus 4 characters of 3rd level each?

 

[Luckmann]

Spoiler

You chose the worst fucking example, but since you are not playing this game but only shitposting here I can understand.

That bear was changed for story reasons, not because of some more challenging design goal. That is a fey version of a normal bear, it is supposed to show players early what kind of shit is awaiting them later. PnP campaign (I was told) has Fey shit suddenly come out of nowhere, so Owlcat (possibly with advice of MCA) decided to introduce some of the elements earlier so it fits better in a computer version.


EDIT: But since the autist called Cael has me on ignore he will not learn this and just continue spouting his garbage on this page while pretending he knows what he is talking about while not actually playing the game (I don't think he even played Pathfinder on tabletop).

It was likely not necessary to be adviced by MCA. If you look up the AP and the discussions on it, it's an *extremely* common criticism of the default AP as it was originally published.

Spoiler

And if it's one advice you'll consistently get when talking to veterans, it's "foreshadow more". If you read the AP as-written, it really comes from nowhere.


Now, I think that they might've foreshadowed to the point of it being all too obvious, down to downright spoiler it, but even that is honestly better, giving you an idea of what's going on, even if it's overarching.

And jesus christ, dude, spoiler tags.

 

[Yosharian]

Lets take a look at a cr3 bear.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/bear/black-bear/

AC 17. What exactly is this bear gonna do against a party of 6 except dieing in the first combat round without having caused as much as a single point of damage?

Yeah but single creatures are notoriously weak against parties, even when the CR is appropriate. Action economy is a bitch.

 

[Luckmann]

Lets take a look at a cr3 bear.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/bear/black-bear/

AC 17. What exactly is this bear gonna do against a party of 6 except dieing in the first combat round without having caused as much as a single point of damage?

how is the challenge rating judged in pathfinder? cr3 is what, versus 1 PC of 3rd char level? versus 4 characters of 3rd level each?

By the encounter design guidelines, a party of 6 lvl 3 characters would have an "Average Part Level" (APL) of 4. A CR-1 encounter is classified as "Easy".

Add to this that the discrepancy of 5-6 characters vs. 1 enemy is fucking huge, regardless of CR.

Edit: Sorry, you said 4 characters. A party of 4 lvl 3 characters would have an APL of 3. A CR encounter is classified as "Average". But again, the discrepancy is huge.

 

[Yosharian]

how is the challenge rating judged in pathfinder? cr3 is what, versus 1 PC of 3rd char level? versus 4 characters of 3rd level each?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/#Table-CR-Equivalencies

Add up the XP of all the monsters you're including

Total XP should equal the amount shown on this table, where the CR is equal to the party's average level.

If you have 6 players, you add 1 to the party's average level. So 6 level 1 adventurers have an average level of 1+1=2.

Black Bear has XP of 800, which makes it a CR3 encounter when alone. That's 'Challenging', according to Pathfinder (APL+1):

Difficulty Challenge Rating Equals
Easy APL –1
Average APL
Challenging APL +1
Hard APL +2
Epic APL +3

A Black Bear could definitely kill a PC in one turn if you got lucky.

BUT

The trick to good GMing is to look at the skills and abilities the bear has. The bear can swim very well. So, you can use this creature anytime the PCs try to swim across a river, for example. In the middle of their swim, a Black Bear appears, and attacks the party while they're swimming.

Also, the bear is fucking FAST. You could use this monster effectively to chase down a wounded PC, grapple it, and kill it.

So yeah, if you make the fight fair, the Bear's going to get fucked. The trick is not to make the fight fair, by utilizing the creature's abilities/skills.

Also, as a 'Challenging' encounter, the Bear is not supposed to TPK the party. It's only supposed to stand a decent chance at killing one of them, perhaps. And with 3 attacks per round and auto-grapple, it could definitely do that.